Washington’s Approval of F-16 Training for Ukraine Signals We’re with Kyiv for the Long Haul
Table of Contents
Author(s)
Share this Publication
- Print This Publication
- Cite This Publication Copy Citation
Joe Barnes, "Washington’s Approval of F-16 Training for Ukraine Signals We’re with Kyiv for the Long Haul" (Houston: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, May 25, 2023).
President Joe Biden has announced that the United States will support a multinational effort to train Ukrainian personnel in the use of F-16 fighter aircraft. A decision to permit transfers of F-16s will presumably follow. Biden made his announcement at the G-7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had flown to meet with G-7 leaders. Biden’s announcement was a great personal triumph for Zelenskyy. His government and many of its strongest supporters (including those here in the United States) have been advocating such a move for a year.
The U.S. F-16 is the most popular combat aircraft in the world. The plane is deployed by the United States, its allies, and other countries. The design of the F-16 is now 50 years old, though most aircraft currently in use are substantially upgraded. The United States is unlikely to supply U.S. F-16s directly to Ukraine. The source will instead be other NATO allies in Europe and there will be no shortage of willing suppliers. Training and delivery of aircraft will probably have no direct impact on the long-awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive likely to begin in a matter of months, or even weeks. Providing adequate maintenance for the F-16s will be a challenge for Ukrainian forces even after the introduction of trained Ukrainian pilots.
Still, the provision of F-16s will substantially improve the capabilities of the Ukrainian air force, which is currently outgunned by its Russian counterpart. And the transfer also signals something very important for Ukraine: the long-term support of the United States and its allies. Perhaps the forthcoming Ukrainian offensive will drive Russia from all Ukrainian soil. But an uglier outcome — a bloody, protracted stalemate — is also possible. Zelenskyy and his government are committed to ensuring that U.S. and NATO support doesn’t flag if the war should drag on. While hoping for a short war, Ukraine is also planning for a longer one.
The F-16 decision by Biden is just the latest public reversal by the U.S. on weaponry for Ukraine. From the beginning of the conflict, Washington has hesitated to provide certain advanced equipment to Kyiv, including Patriot missiles and M-1 tanks, only to relent after months of pressure. (The tanks have yet to be delivered, though training of Ukrainian crews is underway.) This reluctance reflects Biden’s position on the war since it began. He has offered high levels of support — material and rhetorical — to the Ukrainian government in its struggle against Russian aggression. In addition, U.S. intelligence has certainly contributed to Ukrainian battlefield success in important ways. But at the same time, Biden has been wary of direct U.S. involvement, early on dismissing requests that the U.S. and its allies directly intervene in Ukraine by sending aircraft to impose a “no-fly zone” over the country. His administration also clearly feared that the provision of equipment like the Patriot, the M-1, and the F-16 could lead to escalation of the conflict.
What led the Biden administration to change its course on F-16s? Administration sources suggest the change reflects a shift from addressing Ukraine’s urgent short-term needs to providing the country with equipment needed for a longer conflict. There is also apparently a growing presumption that Russia is simply not capable of responding to escalation in a meaningful way. It’s true that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats — including raising the issue of tactical nuclear weapons — have rung hollow, at least so far.
Meanwhile, there has been a small-scale incursion into Russia proper by pro-Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainian government denies direct responsibility, describing the force as Russian anti-Putin “patriots.” The cross-border attack is unlikely to have major military consequences. It may divert some Russian troops that would otherwise be confronting the main Ukrainian army. A more important effect of the attack may be political: It sends a message to Russians that Putin cannot fully protect them from the consequences of the war.
All this occurs against the backdrop of the months-long battle for the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. Some reports suggest that Russia has finally seized the town. This may well be a feather in Putin’s cap. But it is a victory that comes at a terrible price. By all accounts, Russian losses taking the city have been huge. Given this, the Russian army is unlikely to use Bakhmut as a springboard for a substantial new offensive. For the present, Russia appears focused on strengthening its positions throughout southern Ukraine for the long-awaited Ukrainian attack. The fight for Bakhmut may well prove a deadly dead end to Russia’s strategic position in Ukraine.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.